Laserfiche WebLink
CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED IF THEIR APPLICATION IS FOR A SMALL <br />NUMBER OF UNITS OR THE WHOLE PROJECT. <br />ATTORNEY HENDERSON EXPLAINED THAT THEY HAVE FILED AN <br />APPLICATION WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEEKING A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL <br />ON THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE. THE FIRST SITE PLAW IS JUST THE FIRST <br />PHASE; IT IS PART OF AN OVERALL PACKAGE AND THEY NEED APPROVAL ON THE <br />CONCEPT IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH FUTURE PLANNING. <br />MR. CLARK STATED THEY HAVE THREE ITEMS THAT WILL REQUIRE <br />CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL ® A WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM WHICH MUST BE SIZED <br />PROPERLY AND CONSTRUCTED BEFORE THEY CAN ASK FOR CERTIFICATES OF <br />OCCUPANCY; A PROPOSED 100' MARINA IN RELATION TO WHICH A VERY INVOLVED <br />HYDROLOGY STUDY AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY HAS BEEN DONE; AND THEY <br />ARE ASKING FOR DETAIL APPROVAL ON TWO PLUS ACRES. <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT THE WASTE WATER TREATMENT <br />PLANT IS PLANNED -TO BE CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE ENTIRE PROJECT AND - <br />WISHED TO KNOW IF THIS FITS IN WITH PHASING DOWN TO 6 UNITS PER ACRE. <br />MR. CLARK REPORTED THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, THEY <br />PLAN TO EXPAND THE PLANT, PROBABLY TWICE. HE CONTINUED THAT THE <br />LOCATION OF THE PLANT HAS BEEN FIXED ON THEIR PLAN; THE DATA HAS BEEN <br />REVIEWED AND TESTED; THEY HAVE A LETTER FROM THE COUNTY ON THAT <br />PARTICULAR FRANCHISE APPLICATION AND CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FROM THE <br />COUNTY UTILITY DIRECTOR; AND THEY HAVE RECEIVED A CONSUMPTIVE USE <br />PERMIT FROM ST. JOHN'S WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR ABOUT TWO TIMES <br />THE AMOUNT OF WATER THEY NEED, WHICH WILL BE OBTAINED FROM A DEEP <br />ARTESIAN WELL ON SITE. MR. CLARK NOTED THAT WHAT THEY REALLY ARE <br />ASKING THE COUNTY TO DO TODAY IS TO GET STARTED WITH THE REVIEW OF <br />THEIR APPLICATION. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT ONLY THE COUNTY COMMISSION <br />HAS THE POWER TO GIVE A VESTED CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, AND UNTIL THE <br />SITE PLANS ARE FINAL, HE DID NOT FEEL THE WHOLE PROJECT COULD BE <br />ADDRESSED. HE NOTED THAT THIS ACTION WAS LAID BEFORE THE BOARD <br />BECAUSE OF ACTION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND HE FELT IT IS STILL <br />THE PLANNING DTRECTOR'S DECISION AS TO WHETHER HE IS GOING TO REQUIRE <br />A BINDING LETTER. <br />DEC 171980 <br />71 <br />